THE HOME OF MMJNEWS

Category Archives: mmjca

A measure legalizing marijuana use in Vermont cleared the state’s legislature on Wednesday.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R) has said the legislation is not “a priority for Vermont” and has not made a final decision as to whether he will sign it. The measure makes Vermont the ninth state to legalize recreational marijuana use among adults and the first to legalize through a legislative process. Other states have approved recreational marijuana use through ballot initiatives.

“Vermont lawmakers made history today,” said Matt Simon, the New England political director for the Marijuana Policy Project, a marijuana policy group. “The legislature has taken a crucial step toward ending the failed policy of marijuana prohibition.” Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized the possession and use of marijuana, though each state has its own rules and regulations. For example, in Washington — one of the first states to legalize pot — only individuals using the drug for medical purposes can grow it, though any adult is allowed to possess and use it.

In Washington, D.C., marijuana can be used and “gifted,” but not bought, sold or exchanged for other goods or services.

Marijuana use is illegal according to federal policy, and President Trump’s opposition to legalization has created uncertainty for some states seeking to regulate the industry.

If signed by the governor, the Vermont measure would remove civil penalties for possessing one ounce of marijuana or less and would allow adults to keep up to two mature pot plants. It would also create a commission to develop a plan for taxing and regulating the drug.

Two bills aimed at regulating California’s marijuana industry cleared key hurdles in the state Legislature on Wednesday after one North Coast lawmaker hauled a live plant into the Capitol to illustrate the value of the lucrative crop. State Sen. Mike McGuire’s Medical Marijuana Public Safety and Environmental Protection Act, SB 643, advanced from the Assembly Business and Professions Committee on Tuesday and heads to the Health Committee next week. The bill would establish a broad regulatory structure for California’s medical marijuana industry, which has been plagued by ineffective and confusing rules despite being legal at the state level since 1996. With this bill, the Healdsburg Democrat set out to create a framework for governing the medical cannabis industry, from establishing tax structures and quality controls to licensing dispensaries and cultivation sites. A Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation established within the existing Department of Consumer Affairs would oversee the industry.

The bill passed on the Senate floor in June.

The Assembly Health Committee is chaired by Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, who co-authored a competing bill taking a different approach to regulating medical marijuana in the state.

AB 266 would spread the responsibility for licensing different aspects of medical marijuana across several state agencies, including the Board of Equalization and the departments of Public Health and Food and Agriculture. Local governments would oversee growing and selling marijuana. The Senate Health Committee is considering the bill.

McGuire’s bill complements proposed legislation from another North Coast lawmaker, Assemblyman Jim Wood, D-Healdsburg, that is focused on regulating the impact of marijuana cultivation on water resources. His measure, AB 243, the Marijuana Watershed Protection Act, would bring pot under the regulatory control of water agencies. Wood noted that a single marijuana plant is worth between $2,500 and $4,000.

He brought a live marijuana plant with him to the hearing in Sacramento, saying it would help other lawmakers “understand the size and value of medical marijuana farms.” The bill passed the Senate Governance and Finance committee 5-0. It heads to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee next week. If passed, the bill would place a $50 fee on each legal plant. Proceeds from the fee would go to environmental mitigation and restoration efforts, as well as enhanced law enforcement efforts to ensure legitimate cultivation.

The State of California is taking historic steps to protect watersheds amid the devastating ongoing drought, combined with an uptick in cannabis cultivation along remote, sensitive watersheds. The State Water Board has new outreach brochures encouraging folks to “Know Before They Grow” and warning contractors of the fines associated with unpermited roadbuilding and bulldozing of streams.

The state is also making historic efforts to educate cultivators on allowable pesticides, releasing a “Pesticide Use on Marijuana” paper. The guidelines are “being provided for informational purposes only” and the state does “authorize, permit, endorse, or in any way approve the use, sale, cultivation, or any other activity associated with marijuana. Any such activity is subject to prosecution under federal law.”

All judgement aside, the State Water Board wants people using pesticides correctly.

1) NO ILLEGAL MEXICAN PESTICIDES“Pesticides must be registered by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) before they can be sold and used in California.”

2) BUYER BEWARE“There are no pesticides registered specifically for use directly on marijuana and the use of pesticides on marijuana plants has not been reviewed for safety or human health effects.”

3) THE KEY IS RESIDUE“Under California law, the only pesticide products not illegal to use on marijuana are those that contain an active ingredient that is exempt from residue-tolerance requirements; and are registered and labeled for a use that is broad enough to include use on marijuana (e.g. unspecified green plants); or are exempt from registration requirements as a minimum risk pesticide under FIFRA.”

4) READ THE LABEL“Before using any pesticide, ALWAYS read and follow the pesticide label. The label is the law.”

5) GET A PERMIT“If you apply pesticides to a field, you must obtain an operator identification number from the County Agricultural Commissioner and submit monthly pesticide use reports to that office. Note: No operator identification number will be issued in any local jurisdiction that prohibits marijuana cultivation.”

6) AVOID ‘RESTRICTED USE’“U.S. EPA designates certain pesticide products as federally “Restricted Use” products when they determine those products may cause unreasonable adverse effects even when used as directed on the product labeling. Restricted Use pesticides are limited to use by certified applicators, or to those under the supervision of a certified applicator.”

7) NO ‘RESTRICTED MATERIALS’“U.S. EPA designates certain pesticide products as federally “Restricted Use” products when they determine those products may cause unreasonable adverse effects even when used as directed on the product labeling. Restricted Use pesticides are limited to use by certified applicators, or to those under the supervision of a certified applicator. Permits will not be issued for marijuana cultivation sites.

8) PROTECT YOUR WORKERS“Employers must protect their workers from exposure to pesticides. State law requires that employers follow the pesticide label and Provide required personal protective equipment; provide required training and access to pesticide labels and safety information; and properly store, handle, and dispose of pesticides.

9) CAREFUL WITH RODENTICIDES“Rodenticides that are designated as California Restricted Materials cannot be used; and those that are only designated as federally Restricted Use products can only be used by a certified commercial applicator. There are some rodenticides labeled for below ground applications that are not designated as California Restricted Materials or federally Restricted Use pesticides that can be used if consistent with the label.

10) USE NATURAL RODENTICIDES“The following rodent repellants may be used in and around marijuana cultivation sites consistent with the label: Capiscum Oleoresin, Putrescent Whole Egg Solids, Garlic.

Measure A is a proposed ordinance that will be on Shasta County ballots this upcoming election.

If passed the ordinance would stop all outdoor growing of marijuana in unincorporated areas of Shasta County.

Currently, any medical marijuana patient can grow on their own property with a few land restrictions.

Measure A will only allow marijuana to be grown inside in a separate building detached from the residence.

The measure also limits marijuana cultivation to a total of 12 plants for each grow site.

It would still prohibit growing marijuana within 1,000 feet of a school or other similar sensitive places.

According to those who support the measure, a yes-vote would prevent clear-cutting land, water theft, stream diversion and chemicals entering the water supply.

Kathy Grindstaff, a concerned citizen who supports Measure A, says this measure would reduce crime and would help the environment.

“This is about land use. We are trying to bring the cultivation of marijuana use back under control,” Grindstaff said. “It has just gotten so crazy here in Shasta County. It is being over-run with marijuana cultivation and we just want to see a stop to it.”

Grindstaff says by voting yes on Measure A, the quality of life in Shasta County will improve.

People who are against Measure A say the ordinance is a violation of property rights for patients who rely on medical marijuana for medicine.

Rick Arons, who owns a grow shop in Redding, is against the measure as he thinks the ordinance completely overlooks the people who need marijuana for medical purposes.

“This ban on outdoor cultivation is just hurting patients who are doing things the right way,” Arons said.

He said the priority should be with the people who need it to survive.

“It’s hugely important for a cannabis patient that needs this medicine to be able to cultivate their own. It’s the only true and safe way to be able to know what you have done to your own medicine,” Arons said.

Arons said by forcing people to grow inside, it also forces patients to purchase extremely expensive equipment to grow the marijuana correctly.

He says growing organically is the best way for people to keep costs low.

For more information on Measure A and how it may affect you can read more here.

A state appellate court in Sacramento has ruled that “concentrated cannabis” qualifies as marijuana for purposes of medical use.

A unanimous three-justice panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal disagreed this week with an earlier ruling by El Dorado Superior Court Judge James R. Wagoner and reversed the judge’s decision that a medical marijuana patient violated probation by possessing concentrated cannabis.

Sean Patrick Mulcrevy, of Cameron Park, was charged in 2013 with unlawful possession of concentrated cannabis, a misdemeanor, and was alleged to have violated his probation because of his failure “to obey all laws.”

Wagoner reviewed the existing legal authority indicating that concentrated cannabis is covered by California’s Compassionate Use Act, or CUA, the 1996 voter initiative approving medical use of marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation. But Wagoner rejected the authority as “unsound” and ruled that “the (CUA) does not apply to concentrated cannabis” because the act does not define marijuana, refer to concentrated cannabis or incorporate statutory definitions of either term.

A probation search of Mulcrevy by a sheriff’s deputy turned up 0.16 grams of “honey oil” – a form of concentrated cannabis, 0.05 grams of “dabs” – another form of concentrated cannabis, and 3.33 grams of marijuana.

Mulcrevy, 22, had a physician’s recommendation for use of marijuana and its active ingredient, THC, to treat migraine headaches and acid reflux. He had purchased the marijuana, dabs and honey oil in a medical marijuana store.

Wagoner extended Mulcrevy’s probation by two years, but stayed execution of the sentence pending appeal.

In an opinion issued Wednesday, the justices concluded that Wagoner violated Mulcrevy’s right to defend himself when the judge prevented Mulcrevy from presenting a defense based on the CUA.

Concentrated cannabis “is covered by the CUA, and there is insufficient evidence (Mulcrevy) violated his probation in light of that conclusion,” the justices stated in their unpublished opinion. “Therefore, we also conclude the court’s error was not harmless and we reverse the trial court’s judgment.”

The CUA does not define marijuana or concentrated cannabis, the justices noted. But, they added, the terms had already been defined in other sections of the law when the CUA was approved by voters 18 years ago. Marijuana was defined as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.,whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin.” Hemp was excluded from the definition.

Cannabis sativa L. is the name conferred on the plant in 1753 by Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish scientist who laid the foundation for how groups of biological organisms are classified.

Today, officials for the City of Santa Ana began accepting applications from people interested in opening up medical marijuana shops.

Measure BB, which voters approved, allows for the legal sale of medical cannabis in Orange County.

Santa Ana was the first city to accept these applications in Orange County and they will be available for the next 30 days.

The applications will be screened for a period of time, before about 12 or so will be selected to open for business. It has been reported that more than 75 people lined up at City Hall to apply for licenses today, and in the coming days dozens more are expected.

“The voters passed this overwhelmingly with 75 percent approval,” said Vincent Sarmiento, Santa Ana Mayor pro tem. “Many of those voters have family members, or themselves, who are suffering with illnesses and hope that medicinal marijuana will be able to give some relief to them.”

The rules about where the collectives can operate are strict.

They will be zoned and regulated to operate in the southern and eastern parts of the city. The collectives must also be at least 1,000 feet from parks, schools and residential areas, similar to rules in Riverside County.

For the marijuana legalization movement, 2014 ends the way it began: with legal changes that showcase the movement’s momentum alongside its problems.

Tucked into the 1,603-page year-end spending bill Congress released Tuesday night were a pair of provisions that affect proponents of cannabis reform. Together they form a metaphor for the politics of legal cannabis—an issue that made major bipartisan strides this year, but whose progress is hampered by a tangle of local, state and federal statutes that have sown confusion and produced contradictory justice.

First the good news for reformers: the proposed budget would prohibit law enforcement officials from using federal funds to prosecute patients or legal dispensaries in the 32 states, plus the District of Columbia, that passed some form of medical-marijuana legalization. The provision was crafted by a bipartisan group of representatives and passed the Republican-controlled House in May for the first time in seven tries. If passed into law, it would mark a milestone for the movement, restricting raids against dispensaries and inoculating patients from being punished for an activity that is legal where they live but in violation of federal law.

“The enactment of this legislation will mark the first time in decades that the federal government has curtailed its oppressive prohibition of marijuana, and has instead taken an approach to respect the many states that have permitted the use of medical marijuana to some degree,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher said in a statement to TIME. The California Republican’s work on the issue reflects the strange coalition that has sprung up to support cannabis reform as the GOP’s libertarian wing gains steam and voters’ views evolve.

At the same time, the House chose to overrule Washington, D.C., on the issue. Last month voters in the District chose to liberalize its marijuana laws, passing an initiative that legalized the possession, consumption and cultivation of recreational marijuana. The move, which was supported by about 70% of the capital’s voters, paved the way for D.C. to follow in the footsteps of Colorado and Washington State by establishing a tax-and-regulatory structure for cannabis sales in 2015.